Support NeoGAF

[Bydobob]

I have a Ben Q XL2411T 144Hz monitor and I notice a significantly better image quality at higher framerates. Capping at 60 gives you much more movement blur. While running emulation software I'll also enable strobe effect lightboost to mimic the movement clarity of a CRT display. A feature not possible on a 60Hz panel.

The biggest advantage of these monitors though is being able to run games unlocked without VSync and practically eliminate the screen tear issues you'd normally get.

Go for it, it's one of the best upgrades you can get in my opinion.

 

[Soodanim]

I can't comment on what having a high refresh rate monitor is like without G-Sync (or Freesync), but with G-Sync it's amazing. You can gain and drop frames as much as you like with no tearing at all, and it really is how gaming should be for everyone. I paid £300 for my 24" 1080p AOC G2460PG and it was worth every penny.

As for how things are at 30/60/120/144, in GTAV my personal minimum framerate is 60fps. If it starts dropping below that I'll turn down settings. It's the same with anything else where I can control it. It's made it so Dark Souls at 30fps is nearly unplayable. You obviously do adjust, same as you always do and will, but it's literally a quarter of the smoothness if you're forced to play one of the crappy ports that limit you to 30.

In my experience, it's not AS noticeable in games as it is in just normal usage. Simply using the mouse is a joy on a 144hz screen.

I feel the opposite. I can really notice it in games when I go above 60, but for regular PC stuff it's not quite as noticeable. The exception to that is minimise/maximise animations. They take on a whole new smoothness, and it's great.

Yes it's pretty noticeable but it's not like when you go from 60 to 30 and want it all to end.

Load up something that gives you quick access to an option and go from 144fps down to 30. It's something else.

Definitely not as noticeable as 30->60 but it is noticeable. I just picked up a 1080p 144hz g-sync monitor yesterday and it's awesome for fast-paced FPS games.

That's what I've got. Fast paced stuff is obviously where it's best, and FPSs are included in that. It seriously makes me play the Half-Life games differently. I play much faster at 144fps than I do at 60, I guess because I'm more in control.

I can definitely tell the difference between 30FPS versus 60FPS, but when it goes to around 90FPS or higher I have a really hard time detecting the difference, It eventually just all blurs together.

There are definitely diminishing returns, and yeah over 90 it gets harder and harder to tell. It's easier to tell if you're going fast in something like Sleeping Dogs.

Please note:
I don't want you to think that every game will let you play at 144fps. A lot of games, especially console ports, are locked at 60. For FPS you're generally fine (Source engine games are unlocked, and Unreal Engine 3 games are locked at 90, apparently), and open world games (Sleeping Dogs, Just Cause 2, GTAV) are over 60, but for a lot of games (depending on your library) will lock you to 60. Burnout Paradise for example, a game that would benefit from 144fps, is locked to 60. Some games let you play at above 60fps, but have engine issues that appear above a certain point. I've read of Fallout New Vegas having physics problems (some physics engines start to crack, like Dark Souls') and throwing you across a room when you enter at high enough rates. I gave Skyrim a whirl for 10 minutes yesterday and you get a couple slight graphical glitches. Nothing serious or gameplay affecting, just a little noticeable thing here and there that lasts for 1/4 second).

For a general guide of games that do and don't support it, I found this the other day: http://120hz.net/showthread.php?3258-New-120Hz-Games-Report&

 

[Faith]

considering that most people do have that mentality, your statement doesn't make any sense at all
the idea that somebody suggesting one part of a technology is good enough and doesn't need to advance means that they think all technology in the world is good enough and doesn't need to advance is mind fuckingly idiotic

Progress is always a good thing, always.

It's like saying that the picture quality of TVs is good enough today.

 

[Matty8787]

I have a Ben Q XL2411T 144Hz monitor and I notice a significantly better image quality at higher framerates. Capping at 60 gives you much more movement blur. While running emulation software I'll also enable strobe effect lightboost to mimic the movement clarity of a CRT display. A feature not possible on a 60Hz panel.

The biggest advantage of these monitors though is being able to run games unlocked without VSync and practically eliminate the screen tear issues you'd normally get.

Go for it, it's one of the best upgrades you can get in my opinion.

I have an XL2411T and an XL2411Z, both fantastic monitors but I can't get the colours to match perfectly across both of them and it bugs me. It is only a slight difference but still, it exists.

Excellent monitors though!

 

[ekim]

I just built a new PC this weekend and got a G-Sync 1080p 144Hz monitor from Acer... coming from console gaming the last 5-6 years everything is just so buttery smooth. Definitely seeing a difference between 60 and 90+ Fps. That and G-Sync is just mind blowing in terms of responsiveness and feedback.

 

[Theonik]

You can notice framerates higher than 60 certainly and you can get a competitive advantage at games running in those framerates.

I also want to go to 120 or 144hz but I'm afraid I'll be chasing that framerate forever.

This is why GSync and Freesync to a lesser extent are great.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Progress is always a good thing, always.

eh you'll find tons of people who will disagree with you there
I am not gonna get into it, but I seriously find the idea of patting yourself on the back as a world changer for the better just because you think today's framerates are shit and want more to be a fat load of self congratulatory bs

 

[Linkyn]

It's noticeable, but not as noticeable as 60 vs 30.

 

[Kölsch Bloot]

Believe it or not, but there are people out there

Spoiler

(me included)

not even noticing a big difference between 30 and 60

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

It's not as noticible. You obviously get diminishing returns the higher you go. The difference between 120 and 60 isn't as noticible as the difference between 60 and 30. On the same note, the difference between 60 and 30 is nowhere near as noticible as the difference between 30 and 15.

 

[MaxiLive]

Not as noticeable or has as much of an impact unless you are a crazy professional level player then the difference would be quite significant.

Still a nice upgrade but most games would struggle to run at 120 fps unless you turn some settings down of have stupid amounts of disposable income for PC upgrades

 

[Ty4on]

What about 120 vs 240?

There is no input that supports 240hz today so who knows. Eizo has a 240hz monitor where the extra frame is used for black frame insertion to lower motion blur.

 

[Tenebrous]

It's as noticeable, but going from 120/144 to 60 isn't the horrid experience that going from 60 to 30 is... Well, unless you play nothing but CS and love 144Hz a lot.

 

[BrettHeazy]

Hell no. It's very noticable when comparing them side by side (such as using this site), but in most games it makes very little difference.

I like this site

 

[Lightning Count]

I am waiting for the day when some super niche ultra high cost manufacturer creates a 960hz monitor then there will be a space race to attempt to run something at 960fps.

Of course it will be pointless, prove basically nothing and be an insane money pit, I will be laughing all day.

 

[Theonik]

I am waiting for the day when some super niche ultra high cost manufacturer creates a 960hz monitor then there will be a space race to attempt to run something at 960fps.

Of course it will be pointless, prove basically nothing and be an insane money pit, I will be laughing all day.

You could probably run early 2000s games at that framerate on a Titan X!
Ultimate competitive Quake 2 display!

 

[gelf]

Progress is always a good thing, always.

It's like saying that the picture quality of TVs is good enough today.

Progress can be measured in different ways though. With progress in hardware capabilities there is still always some choice in how you use them. To me boosting framerate above 60 and resolution above 1080p are the most uninteresting ways of using extra power.

The NES and the PS2 both were designed for the same display hardware CRT TVs but you can't deny there's a lot of progress there between the two. And I'm more interested in that kind of step forward.

If you can afford the hardware knock yourself out, I just don't like suggestions something needs be the standard going forward because progress.

Anyway I'm massively off topic. I'm sure you can notice the difference but it won't be as much as 30 to 60.

 

[Ivan Amiibo]

You could probably run early 2000s games at that framerate on a Titan X!
Ultimate competitive Quake 2 display!

We'll also need to build the android who can play with reactions that utilize that framerate.

or to properly utilize 120fps for that matter.

 

[Theonik]

We'll also need to build the android who can play with reactions that utilize that framerate.

or to properly utilize 120fps for that matter.

Details! Actually for 120fps there is a competative advantage from say 90 fps and there is one from 60 which is larger. Even if you cannot respond that fast, your brain doesn't work using frames per se but constantly refreshes sensory feedback. (your eyes themselves are completely a-synchronous organs) so the faster you get visual stimulus you can begin reacting faster.

 

[Faith]

We could also compare this to TVs. Some of them have 200Hz panels with image interpolation. Everybody will notice a difference between his 50/60Hz content with or without the image processing.

We're talking about hold-type displays. We need as much Hz als we can get to reduce motion blur and stuttering.

 

[Fantasmo]

I have one and it's amazing but good luck getting it in new games without turning all the bells and whistles down or paying out the wazoo.

 

[Bluefoot]

Obviously not as noticeable, but you can tell the diff. It starts to become a subtle yet, kinda important.

Like its been noted, MP FPS, having the extra frames means you see your enemy first, and have more frames more time, to shoot them also. Big advantage on counterstrike.

 

[Theonik]

We could also compare this to TVs. Some of them have 200Hz panels with image interpolation. Everybody will notice a difference between his 50/60Hz content with or without the image processing.

We're talking about hold-type displays. We need as much Hz als we can get to reduce motion blur and stuttering.

Precisely, more frames are better usually with our current displays even if you render content in lower framerates.

It used to be even more important with CRTs and Plasmas to a lesser extent since the display would flicker at update making 60hz too low a refresh rate. In the early 2000s most PC monitors were 100hz for that reason.
I remember going from playing Counter Strike on a high pitch 100+ hz CRT to an LCD. It was so bad. SO BAD.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

Yes it is, it's just relativism.
When 30 fps was the norm you had people saying only 60 fps was ok. Now 120 fps is available so the same people say it's the only acceptable thing. When 240 fps or whatever becomes available the same persons will bandwagon for this frequency.

It's not though. The question is "Is 60fps > 120fps as noticeable as 30fps > 60fps". Whether 30fps is acceptable (it isn't) or not is irrelevant.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Precisely, more frames are better usually with our current displays even if you render content in lower framerates.

It used to be even more important with CRTs and Plasmas to a lesser extent since the display would flicker at update making 60hz too low a refresh rate. In the early 2000s most PC monitors were 100hz for that reason.
I remember going from playing Counter Strike on a high pitch 100+ hz CRT to an LCD. It was so bad. SO BAD.

Less important
pulse vs sample and hold means you didn't require as high a framerate to be able to perceive full detail in motion.

crt flicker as a bad thing was mostly marketing garbage to push inferior early lcd tech on people.
Guess what those backlight strobing 800 dollar gaming monitors do? emulate crt like pulse (flicker) to allow your eyes to see the motion properly.

The 'flicker' of crts is the biggest advantage it has over lcd and oled.

Even on 50hz PAL tvs the flicker never bothered people.

 

[joeygreco1985]

Going from 60 to 120 when I got my 120hz ASUS VG278H a few years ago was a huge difference to me. I found the added fluidity and crispness with movement just so beneficial.

If I'm playing a single player campaign I can do without the 120 and drop back to 60 to play on my TV, that's not an issue. But with competitive shooters 120 was it for me. Lately I've been playing CS:GO at 120FPS and I couldn't go back to 60

 

[joeygreco1985]

, and Unreal Engine 3 games are locked at 90, apparently),

You can edit the ini files for UE3 games to play them at 120. I played through Spec Ops The Line and Bulletstorm at a locked 120. Really helps with fast paced UT3 matches too

 

[Theonik]

Less important
pulse vs sample and hold means you didn't require as high a framerate to be able to perceive full detail in motion.

crt flicker as a bad thing was mostly marketing garbage to push inferior early lcd tech on people.
Guess what those backlight strobing 800 dollar gaming monitors do? emulate crt like pulse (flicker) to allow your eyes to see the motion properly.

The 'flicker' of crts is the biggest advantage it has over lcd and oled.

Even on 50hz PAL tvs the flicker never bothered people.

There was a lot of people that disliked flicker in early monitors, it certainly introduced eyestrain for a lot of people. Pulsing at higher than 100hz does greatly alleviate that issue.
Mind, phosphor retention meant that the issue was actually not as strong as people made it out to be usually.

With 120+hz LCD it's now a non-issue and strobing helps a lot with motion on modern LCDs which is the point, if you were to do the same on a 60hz LCD you'd have problems so it's not just about motion in terms of temporal sampling per se.

Edit: Added some clarity, I should also explain that I meant there was a noticeable drop from going from CRT to an LCD in terms of quality.
Edit2: Also important to point out is that for most monitor users motion clarity is less important than it is for people who game on displays or watch movies.

 

[Unai]

120Hz is a lot better even when running games at 60 FPS.

 

[VGA222]

60fps vs 30fps is a difference of 16.67ms per frame.
120fps vs 60fps is a difference of 8.34ms per frame.

So I doubt that the difference would be as noticeable. Also, there's probably diminishing returns in terms of visual perception of increasing frame rates.

 

[Z3M0G]

I really need to see 120 fps for myself to see what all the hub-bub is about... but I don't know how/when that could even happen. I don't know anyone who games on PC to that degree.

Eh, I have a 144Hz monitor, and I definitely don't think so. It's still noticeable, but once I get past ~90FPS I can hardly tell the difference. I just don't think that going from 60 to 120 is as noticeable as going from 30 to 60, to be clear. Getting a 144Hz monitor is absolutely worth it though.

This is what I don't get... I'm sure this point would be true to almost anyone... why didn't we jump from 60fps to 90fps, instead of directly to 120fps?

It would obviously take less processing power to hit 90 frames... that's only 50% more frames instead of 100% more. Why don't people just aim for 90 and call it a day?

Is it because of monitor refresh rates being 120hz? And how you should stick with the native frequency when possible? Why didn't they go to 90hz screens instead?

 

[Faith]

This is what I don't get... I'm sure this point would be true to almost anyone... why didn't we jump from 60fps to 90fps, instead of directly to 120fps?

It would obviously take less processing power to hit 90 frames... that's only 50% more frames instead of 100% more. Why don't people just aim for 90 and call it a day?

Is it because of monitor refresh rates being 120hz? And how you should stick with the native frequency when possible? Why didn't they go to 90hz screens instead?

You can underclock any monitor.

If you have a 120Hz monitor (without gsync/freesync) you can set it to 90Hz or any other frequency.

 

[Theonik]

I really need to see 120 fps for myself to see what all the hub-bub is about... but I don't know how/when that could even happen. I don't know anyone who games on PC to that degree.



This is what I don't get... I'm sure this point would be true to almost anyone... why didn't we jump from 60fps to 90fps, instead of directly to 120fps?

It would obviously take less processing power to hit 90 frames... that's only 50% more frames instead of 100% more. Why don't people just aim for 90 and call it a day?

Is it because of monitor refresh rates being 120hz? And how you should stick with the native frequency when possible? Why didn't they go to 90hz screens instead?

Without GSync, you will typically be locked to a display frequency, though modern monitors have some flexibility in underclocking the display.
To handle non-native display frequencies without underclocking means you need to do something about them, usually pulldown, the easiest solution is to scale by integer factors so then you can show 60fps on 120 but holding each frame for 2 cycles for example.

 

[Marabouda]

So if I only use the monitor for my ps4, should I use 120hz one or just buy a cheaper 60hz monitor? I play cod and bf4 which are 60fps.
Would I notice any difference with 120hz monitor?

I am so confused with all of this when it comes to the consoles.

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

It was just as noticeable to me as 30 to 60 so I say go for it if you can.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=720113

 

[joeygreco1985]

So if I only use the monitor for my ps4, should I use 120hz one or just buy a cheaper 60hz monitor? I play cod and bf4 which are 60fps.
Would I notice any difference with 120hz monitor?

I am so confused with all of this when it comes to the consoles.

I didn't notice any difference having my Xbox or PS3 plugged into my 120hz monitor, I wouldn't bother. I was able to make use of the 3D features with the PS3 though since my monitor supported 3D, but it was gimmicky at best.

I'd recommend only getting a 120hz monitor if you have a PC capable of pushing 120 frames in games, or if you want to use 3D (assuming the game supports it on consoles). Also note that not all 120hz monitors support 3D.

 

[Unai]

So if I only use the monitor for my ps4, should I use 120hz one or just buy a cheaper 60hz monitor? I play cod and bf4 which are 60fps.
Would I notice any difference with 120hz monitor?

I am so confused with all of this when it comes to the consoles.

The monitor will run in 60Hz when playing your ps4.

 

[Shivvy_NTL]

I think 60 is just fine, but thats just me.

 

[Markitron]

There's no point to gaming if it's not 8k, 240 fps.

I accept no less.

TotalBiscuit's secret GAF account right here.

 

[Sakujou]

hi there,

videogamesystem only person here:

first of all: 60hz and 60fps... there is a difference right?

and since i have never experienced anything about 60fps(because i only play on a dedicated system) is there really a difference? for me, its like day and night comparing 60 to 30.

but everything about 60... its already fluid, so what is 120fps like?

can someone show off a gif/webm or something?
is this possible on a normal screen?
or is my macbook not able to show the gif/webm?

 

[JJDubz]

A good test is actually GTA V. Go into a garage, if you have the gpu for it and v-sync disabled, and check out what that looks like at 120+ fps. It's absolutely gorgeous.

 

[Markitron]

I am actually planning on upgrading my monitor soon, would be looking for a 27'' display that's 120/144 Hz. This seems as good a place as any to ask.....

 

[Nuknuk]

Is there anyone Here who plays on 120 daily? I feel like I'm the only one.

 

[Theonik]

You will not be able to see how much more fluidity there is on a 60hz display. And you wouldn't observe the increase in responsiveness on a video. So the only way is to either buy a display or play with one from someone who does.
You will also see the true benefits only on PC.

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

It depends on the game. I can't play Quake at anything less than 125, but other games are fine at 30 or 60, respectively.

 

[TouchMyBox]

Is there anyone Here who plays on 120 daily? I feel like I'm the only one.

My 120Hz monitor sucks, so I'm using my dell u2711. Waiting on that Acer Predator to not be at back-ordered prices.

 

[Nuknuk]

My 120Hz monitor sucks, so I'm using my dell u2711. Waiting on that Acer Predator to not be at back-ordered prices.

After using 120 hz in most games on my 980 it feels blurry going back to 60hz.

 

[endtropy]

In my personal experience the law of diminishing returns kicks in after around 90hz. Having used both a 120hz native and an overlocked panel that could hit around 100hz it becomes much harder to justify. I think any user will immediately notice the difference (even in something as simple as the desktop environment) of getting between 90-95hz, just moving the mouse pointer around you can see an appreciable difference without any prompting (i.e. people would use my desktop running around 90hz and afterwards ask me what was different, why it seemed "smoother"). Going from 90-120hz though, I think outside of edge cases (i.e. these folks that MUST play quake 3 at 120fps or whatever) becomes just another e-peen measurement.

Also lets be perfectly candid here, your going to start having to pick priorities. I will take 60-90fps averages with higher visual fidelity and resolution then trying to hit some arbitrary fps #. Yes, someone is going to say "just do SLI" or whatever.. As a parent, someone with a mortgage, who's saving for college educations and retirement funds, somethings are just simply a poor choice and some are extremely poor. Again, edge use cases, if your gaming habit can eat up that amount of your resources go for it but I think for most folks it's exists outside the realm of reasonableness

 

[Alo81]

120fps looks great. When I first got my 120hz monitor, I couldn't push most games at 120fps, but I remember playing Far Cry 3, when climbing ladders the framerate would skyrocket up to 120fps, and I remember thinking "God damn that looks so real."

There is something that happens in that switch from 60 to 120 that makes the animation feel a lot more lifelike. It sounds like total garbage market speak, but it does make the world sort of come alive in front of you.

HL2 at 120fps was really awesome to experience.

 

[SapientWolf]

It is noticeable, but don't be fooled into thinking it's as noticeable as 30 vs 60.

With motion blur reduction the difference is greater for me than 30 vs 60. The motion becomes very life-like. It's difficult to go back to regular old 60fps after that experience.